El Conservador: Conservative Opinions: An American of Mexican Descent Expresses His Views

By George H. Rodriguez

George H. Rodriguez has dedicated his life to sharing conservative values with fellow Hispanics and all-Americans. As a Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush appointee, he worked with the Department of Justice in community relations and immigration outreach, going on to work with the White House and on President Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign. In recent years, Rodriguez has served with the GOP and was one of the first Hispanics to be president of a major Tea Party group.

Now in El Conservador: Conservative Opinions, George H. Rodriguez shares a hard-hitting collection of his political essays and commentaries. As a nationally known blogger and political commenter, George Rodriguez is a constitutional conservative Texan of Mexican descent, also known as a Tejano. His essays reflect his belief in personal freedom, and they support the idea that all Texans and Americans should live life as they wish, as long as it does not harm others or infringe on another person’s rights.

With a commitment to conservative values—and, in some cases, with a little bit of a chile picoso attitude—Rodriguez focuses on critical political topics that all Americans should be informed about: from the basics of constitutional government, personal property ownership, and states’ rights to contemporary issues, like debt, immigration, and the so-called diversity. Because liberal misinformation and a growing government can be dangerous to the freedom and liberty of citizens, Rodriguez believes it is important to remember why America is the greatest nation on earth and protect its God-given destiny.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Sep 12, 2018
• ISBN: 9781532051128

George H. Rodriguez

George H. Rodriguez was born in Laredo, Texas, and he was raised in San Antonio; he graduated from Brigham Young University and has certificates in community building from DePaul University and Harvard University. After a notable career working in conservative politics in both Texas and Washington alongside GOP members such as Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Orrin Hatch, and Tom Delay, Rodriguez both served and led a Texas Tea Party before going on to cohost an internet webcast for Raging Elephants Radio from 2013 to 2016. Today Rodriguez is a commentator on Fox News and has a blog, El Conservador.

Book preview

PART 1

Immigration and Border Security

May 18, 2006

Amnesty and What It Means to a State

like West Virginia

Illegal Immigration

I recently had a conversation with a friend in Charleston, West Virginia, about the immigration-reform debate. As we parted, he mentioned to me that while it was very interesting, he felt that West Virginia residents didn’t have a dog in that fight. Unfortunately many people in West Virginia and several other states hold this same view. They feel that the debate over illegal immigration, immigration reform, and amnesty has little to do with them, their communities, and their state. However, the fact is that illegal immigration, immigration reform, and particularly amnesty will have a big impact on West Virginia and other states with low immigrant populations, high unemployment, and a low skilled-labor force.

There is a hot debate in Congress between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, about what to do with the eleven million (or more) illegal aliens who already reside in the United States. The popular sentiment is that some type of gradual citizenship should be granted to these persons because deportation would be impossible.

While some of the elected officials don’t call it amnesty, any type of deferred deportation is a form of amnesty. Whether it is called amnesty, delayed citizenship, or legalization with requirements, the effect and result on West Virginia and other states will be immediate in the form of more federal spending for programs to serve the newcomers.

For instance, the 1986 amnesty had an immediate impact, as it increased the population and poverty levels of certain states. Communities and states that already had large immigrant populations were the most affected directly. But other states were affected indirectly as the federal government created programs for social services.

Furthermore, the 1986 amnesty was supposed to be a onetime-only event, but it has led to the discussion, or demand, of yet another one for an even larger population of illegal aliens. Amnesty rewarded illegal immigration, and it encouraged more of it.

There is another issue for West Virginia and other states with small populations. Federal block grants for housing, health, and other programs are based on the populations and poverty levels of states and communities. Illegal aliens are mostly found in larger states. While West Virginia has had a shrinking population, amnesty will push the state further down the line as other states will increase in population.

Finally, West Virginia’s blue-collar workers should understand they will be in direct competition with a new pool of mostly unskilled workers. Whether the jobs are in West Virginia or elsewhere, the national labor and wage competition will affect them.

As someone born and raised in south Texas, I have seen firsthand the impact of labor competition with Mexicans. South Texas border counties are among the poorest in the nation because of uncontrolled immigration (legal and illegal) and the wage and employment competition it creates.

Whatever position West Virginia political leaders take on amnesty and immigration reform, they should understand that amnesty will make an impact on the state. Illegal immigration is illegal, and it should not be rewarded or excused in any form or fashion. Otherwise we only get more illegal immigration.

August 20, 2012

Deferred Action: Why?

Immigration

Deferred action has always been available to immigrants for special or humanitarian reasons, while law enforcement has always enjoyed so-called prosecutorial discretion. However, we have never seen a deferred-action program systematized and boiled down to a simple application process like President Obama’s recent action. This program may be around for a long time.

The ramifications of the new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program can be understood by reviewing the temporary benefits provided by temporary protected status, or TPS. Authorized by Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), TPS gives the president power to designate countries suffering from natural disasters, wars, or internal turmoil. Once designated, citizens of those countries who are in the United States—and there are always strict requirements regarding time, physical presence, and criminal background—are able to apply for TPS. Although it is not a path to permanent residence or citizenship, once a country is designated, it takes a long time before its TPS designation under Section 244 of the INA is removed.

For example, Honduras was designated for TPS in 1999 after a hurricane. Honduran citizens in the United States at the time of the designation could apply for TPS. That hurricane happened thirteen years ago, but Honduras is still designated over and over for the TPS program about every eighteen months with no end in sight.

The glaring difference between TPS and the new DACA program is that while the federal statute provides for TPS, the DACA program is the result of administrative rule making. President Obama has bypassed Congress in a way that is clearly politically calculated to maximize the benefit to him during the reelection season.

We are all sympathetic to the difficult immigration circumstances of those who come to the United States illegally as children. However, the DACA program is not a proper solution. It raises a lot of legitimate concerns about its far-reaching consequences. Obama claims that only his administration and the federal government have the authority to establish immigration policy. But by this action, he is asking states to handle the implementation of his policy via granting state IDs, scholarships, and other benefits to persons who are still technically illegal aliens. The actual intent of this action seems to be to create political upheaval in those states who want him to enforce immigration laws.

Immigration law is complicated enough, and the DACA program will only confuse matters more. Both Republicans and Democrats defeated the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, but Obama could have reintroduced it in Congress while the Democrats held a supermajority between 2008 and 2010.

Obama has provided temporary work permits to illegal aliens who will compete for jobs with citizens who can’t find them. Furthermore, with state-issued IDs, will these Dreamers now be able to register to vote? The DACA program is designed to help Obama’s reelection bid and will do nothing to address the broader and more complicated immigration issues facing our country.

December 20, 2012

Amnesty Is Not the Solution

Immigration

National columnist Ruben Navarrette recently claimed in one of his editorials that Washington politicians have no clue about immigration, but apparently he doesn’t either. Navarrette is one among many Hispanics who are taking an amnesty-or-nothing approach to immigration policy in light of the recent elections. However, their approach is shortsighted and isn’t right for American workers and taxpayers.

Our national immigration laws are in dire need of revision and change. They are a patchwork of policies developed when our nation was young, expanding, and more agricultural than it is today. There were employment opportunities for unskilled workers and people with limited education.

However, today, education and technical training are very much in demand. A worker must at least have the ability to read and write instructions and follow directions. America also has a great need for employees who have higher-level math skills.

What we don’t need are more poorly educated, unskilled workers. We don’t need immigrants who take more out of the system than they contribute. Our nation cannot afford to admit anyone and everyone. And here is the new shocking reality: we must be selective in our immigration policy. Amnesty (the new code phrase is pathway to citizenship) is the wrong solution.

We had amnesty in 1986 for more than three million persons who had entered the United States illegally. It was supposed to be coupled with enforcement, which apparently didn’t work because now we are talking about ten to fifteen million illegal aliens partaking of a new amnesty program.

Before the politicians start talking about a new amnesty program or pathway to citizenship, they must first look to enforcement. That was part of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act that was never fully instituted.

Along with enforcement, we should create a new guest worker program for immigrants who want to work. This program can help bring the many illegal aliens currently employed in the underground economy out of the shadows. This would allow federal officials to learn who is here and register these persons. But it should not be a pathway to citizenship.

Second, we must rewrite the out-of-date immigration laws and policies to fit the needs of the US economy in the twenty-first century. Instead of trying to reunify families, as in the nineteenth century, we need to encourage the immigration of highly educated and skilled people.

We don’t need more unskilled immigrants who will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and deprive Americans of jobs. Why would we legalize millions of illegal immigrants when we have record deficits and chronic unemployment?

Congress should take steps to improve our immigration system. We could open up jobs for unemployed American workers by requiring all businesses to use E-Verify, an electronic program identifying illegal immigrants in the workforce and protecting jobs for legal workers. That’s a commonsense solution, and the public widely supports it.

While Navarrette consults with illegal immigrant advocates, it seems he could learn a lot from the common American workers and citizens, too.

May 4, 2013

When Is Amnesty Not Amnesty?

Immigration

When is a pathway to citizenship not amnesty or a reward? Over the past few weeks, some conservatives and Republicans have criticized me for confusing the two terms. I have expressed my concern that some Texas Tea Party groups, like the San Antonio Tea Party, may have bought off on the idea that there is a difference between a pathway and amnesty.

However, in my opinion, anyone who willfully entered the country illegally should not be eligible for citizenship ever. My reasons for this hard position are as follows:

1. Unless there is a severe and costly penalty to willful illegal entry, the problem will continue forever. This second adjustment for the millions of illegal immigrants will only lead to a third, fourth, and so forth because there is no absolute penalty for illegal entry.

2. Conservatives seem to be falling into the trap where liberals keep moving the goalpost in this game. Instead of staking a position and holding strong, conservatives and Republicans are moving left and accepting a pathway that will lead to higher taxes for social services.

3. Conservatives and Republicans do not understand the impact Univision and Telemundo are having on Spanish-speaking immigrants. Both TV networks routinely make MSNBC and other liberal media look conservative in the manner they report on immigration issues. Their reporters pander to their Spanish-speaking audience and portray them as victims. Furthermore, they always refer to conservatives as anti-imigrante as if everyone who wants to secure the border is anti-immigration. This constant biased reporting is raising a generation of Hispanics who will distrust anyone or anything conservative or Republican and will vote accordingly. If conservatives and Republicans think future generations of Hispanics will vote for them if they provide a pathway, they are very mistaken.

4. A fear of the Hispanic vote